Culled from Hope For Nigeria

Israel has accused the Council of Europe of “fostering hate and racist trends”
after it passed a resolution calling the male circumcision ritual “a violation of
the physical integrity of children.” Tel Aviv demands the decision be
rescinded immediately.
The Council, a 47-nation pan-European intergovernmental organization that is
not affiliated with the EU, passed the controversial non-binding resolution on
Tuesday with only 13 members voting against it.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe called on states
to “clearly define the medical, sanitary and other conditions to be ensured for
practices such as the non-medically justified circumcision of young boys.”
It would like the member nations to “initiate a public debate, including
intercultural and interreligious dialogue, aimed at reaching a large consensus
on the rights of children to protection against violations of their physical
integrity according to human rights standards.”
Council members have been advised to adopt laws to ensure that such
operations and practices will not be carried out until a child is old enough to
be consulted.
The report also highlighted female genital mutilation, or female circumcision,
which is commonplace in the western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of
Africa. It is also common in some Asian countries and the Middle East.
Israel has harshly criticized the European Council resolution, saying that any
comparison of the ritual to the “barbaric practice of female genital mutilation”
is “either appalling ignorance” or “defamation and anti-religious hatred.”
“Israel calls on the Council to rescind immediately the resolution,” Israeli
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said in a statement. “This resolution
casts a moral stain on the Council of Europe, and fosters hate and racist
trends in Europe.”
“Circumcision of male children is an ancient religious tradition of two
important religions, Judaism and Islam, and it is also common among some
Christian circles,” the Foreign Ministry said.
Palmor argued that circumcision does not harm young boys’ health or bodies,
saying that the American Academy of Pediatrics has proven the health benefits
of newborn male circumcision, while the Council’s report does not carry any
scientific evidence.
Rabbi Menachem Margolin of the Brussels-based European Jewish Association
suggested that the science which the resolution is based on might not be fully
complete.
“The writers of this report have made a partial examination, and did not take
into consideration the opinions of most experts, including from the World
Health Organization, about the positive health aspects of
circumcision,” Margolin told The Jerusalem Post.
Earlier this week, Jewish groups also spoke out against the resolution.
“This is a sign of anti-Semitism, in my opinion,” The Jerusalem Post quoted
the president of the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece, Benjamin
Albalas, as saying.
The European Jewish Congress said that any offer to ban circumcision “sends
out a terrible message to European Jews that our practices, and therefore our
very presence on this continent, are treated with disdain,” the Congress’
president, Moshe Kantor, said, according to the Post.
Last year, Germany sparked debates and angered Muslim and Jewish groups
in the country after a local court ruled that parents cannot have their sons
circumcised on religious grounds. It said that circumcision “for the purpose of
religious upbringing constitutes a violation of physical integrity.”
The ruling provoked fury from both Muslim and Jewish religious groups, who
condemned it as discriminatory and “a serious interference in the right to
freedom of religion.”
Following mass outrage, Germany last year passed a federal circumcision law
that allows specially qualified members of the religious community to
circumcise boys during their first six months of life. After that, the procedure
must be performed by a physician. Germany is home to around 120,000 Jews
and four million Muslims.

wetin pple with facial marks go do?

splashbaby: wetin pple with facial marks go do?

With no disregard intended towards our parents and ancestors and even our peers who have tribal marks, I know that continuation of facial or any other tribal marks has already been banned by UN and Nigerian government too. For those who already have tribal marks and are desperate to get rid of them, I suppose plastic surgery can do some magic here, if they can afford the cost.

I see some people with tribal marks wearing bushy moustache and side burns to cover the marks, but at times I wonder whether women with marks would often wish they had moustache and side burns too.

una know say OBJ get tribal marks?


He must have used his powerful links at UN to scandalise his ancestors efforts in bringing out his hidden virtues after his failed atempt to become secretary General of the UN...na joke ooo

splashbaby: una know say OBJ get tribal marks?


He must have used his powerful links at UN to scandalise his ancestors efforts in bringing out his hidden virtues after his failed atempt to become secretary General of the UN...na joke ooo

Speaking of OBJ, at times, I think the marks fade when wealth and good living become involved. You could see his tribal marks better in pictures taken in the 60s when he was still a lean army officer.

Na u dey yab OBJ o! LOL.

Until the child is old enough to be consulted

This won't work,the South african male ritual is barbaric enough,than having it a common practice when they are older.It's safer having the male circumcision after birth.The female core circumcision-am undecided.

Hezron Lorraine: This won't work,the South african male ritual is barbaric enough,than having it a common practice when they are older.It's safer having the male circumcision after birth.The female core circumcision-am undecided.

That's exactly my opinion if you ask me when it should be done, that's for someome who still believes that the practice should continue. Some are already raising NGOs to send arguments in strong support of the ban. On twitter, someone responded to me:

Jon Byler @ jebyler 23h
@******* yes, there is no health benefit for newborn babies. And I hate
to break it to you, but it doesn't stop HIV either. @FamilyP***

African traditions are replete in this practice, so also Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious doctrines. But it may come as a shock to note that gross population in the Asian continent do not practice it.

I've been following the twitter arguements.I must say some people were just senselessly defending the new policy.

Hezron Lorraine: I've been following the twitter arguements.I must say some people were just senselessly defending the new policy.

It's like Rights groups are bent on remaking global standards by every means. And they are succeeding. I won't be surprised if they pull this one too through, just like LGBT and Gay marriage rights.

^^
They won't win this one.its too ridiculous,but as for gay rights,it's inevitable.

Hezron Lorraine: ^^
They won't win this one.its too ridiculous,but as for gay rights,it's inevitable.

I feel you, but at these times, the rate at which global views are changing is very much faster. Well, the inevitability of Gay Rights ruling the day was not evident some 20 years or so, before some Hollywood stars started disclosing that they were gay. I'm thinking, "Give it some 10 years and under-age male genital cutting could be outlawed".

Probably.let's wait and see.

Hezron Lorraine: Probably.let's wait and see.

Yeah, yeah...